After studying feedback control system of F-4 Phantom, I was wondering if this fighter jet was designed with Vertical/Short Take-off and Landing (V/STOL) mechanism. Since this aircraft came into service in mid-1960s, was V/STOL technology effective those days?
The F-4 was not a V/STOL aircraft. Certainly not VTOL, nor even STOL. Read the comments here:
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/18325/HMS-Hermes-originally-intended-to-operate-F4-Phantoms#.V6fWXP0UXIU
As to the technology itself, in fixed-wing aircraft, that was still quite new when the F-4 was designed, but it did exist.
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/AASG/VASTC/VSTOL%20History/Prop_Hover_FwdFlight.aspx
The only vertical take off aircraft of that era (1960's) was the Harrier, made by Hawker Siddeley with a Rolls-Royce Pegasus engine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_Jump_Jet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Pegasus
The Harrier was extensively redeveloped by McDonnell Douglas and British Aerospace for the second generation in the mid 1980's.
LOL, the blackbird was almost the opposite of VStol, it needed a long runway.
The enormous engine power needed for supersonic flight and the airframe was optimised for high speed at the expense of take off length.
Interestingly I think the HP system of the Pegasus was developed into the Olympus which powered the supersonic Concorde. The Harrier needs lots of air flow at low velocity, whereas supersonic needs a smaller mass at very high exit velocity, so high HP shaft power is needed in both cases. It's the LP system that changes, and in the case of Concorde it has re-heat.
The F4 had the ability to catapult launch off ships and land back on using arrestor gear, but by no means was it STOL and certainly not VSTOL. For land operations, it needed about 6000ft minimum of runway length and used a brake chute on landing.
The Pegasus engine used the core of the Orpheus. The Olympus was an earlier engine dating to the 1940s and was famously fitted to the Vulcan as well as Concorde with an afterburner system. The Orpheus came from the same stable as the Olympus (Bristol-Siddley) but was a much smaller engine.
All of the above are spot on... the F-4 is/was an "old generation" fighter/bomber that required significant runway for take off and landing. It was shot off of carriers, but that's the only time it didn't need a long piece of pavement.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=24
http://www.f4phantom.com/docs/F4_Phantom_Guide.pdf
You may be thinking of an X plane that was based upon the F-4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_XFV-12
In the timeframe in question, NATO actually thought about getting rid of large runways and initiated Research in VTOL/STOL programmes. Several aircraft actually flew as prototypes, not just the Harrier. Examples are Dassault Mirage Balzak V, Yakovlev Yak-38, VFW VAK 191,EWS Süd VJ 101, Dornier Do 31, just to Name a few. But the F-4 was not one of them and did not have enough thrust anyway.
Thrust and also heavy weapon payload i guess. Yet it was supersonic right? top speed up to Mach 2.2-2.3.
We always viewed the F-4 as proof that if you put enough power behind it, even a brick can fly. Certainly not VSTOL/STOL.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematical Sciences
- Control Theory
- Control Systems